Defending the Christian faith and promoting its wisdom against the secular and religious challenges of our day.

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Sex, Drugs, Rock-and-Roll, and Banning Reparative Therapies

Our government is now telling us what kind of lifestyles we
should embrace and what we shouldn’t embrace. It is one thing when government
bans a clear evil like murder. However it is entirely another thing when
government directs us to live out a life that is not of our choosing:

.

A U.S. congresswoman [California
Rep. Jackie Speier] is calling on Congress to denounce therapies designed
to help clients overcome unwanted same-sex attraction [SSA].

Government is now declaring “no exit!” if you are a
homosexual. If you have SSA, you’re stuck with it. I know that this analysis sounds
overly critical, but please notice – government is not saying, “Well, we think
that this particular form of SSA therapy can be harmful, and so we recommend
that perhaps other SSA therapies be considered.” Instead, government is now in
the process of indiscriminately banning all
SSA therapies, whether these therapies attempt to change SSA or merely support
the individual who wants to leave this unwanted lifestyle. All are equally
verboten!

California
has led the way passing a bill that bans SSA therapies for minors who want to
change or at least resist SSA. But why? Those who are now pushing bills to ban “reparative therapies” (RT) claim that they all cause damage – depression and
sometimes suicide. Speier’s bill reads:

Efforts by mental health practitioners
to change an individual’s sexual orientation and gender identity or
expression are dangerous and harmful and should be prohibited from being
practiced on minors…[Various psychological organizations] have not found ‘‘conversion’’ or ‘‘reparative’’
efforts to be effective and have found evidence that they are harmful.

However,
there are good reasons to challenge the bill’s claim that RT is ineffective:

There are two major studies most often
cited to support the potential benefits of reparation therapy. One,
originally published in book form in 2007, was conducted by Stanton Jones and
Mark Yarhouse. A follow-up to the study, which appeared in the Journal of
Sex & Marital Therapy in 2011, concluded not only that it was possible
to change one’s homosexual orientation, but also that psychological harm
was unlikely to result from the effort. (Salvo, Issue 22,34)

The Robert Spitzer study was published in 2003 in the
Archives of Sexual Behavior:

After studying efforts on 200
volunteers who had experienced predominantly homosexual attractions for
many years before beginning therapy, Spitzer found that, for all subjects,
“there was a marked reduction [of homosexual tendencies]…not only on the
three measures of overt behavior and sexual orientation
self-identification…but also on the seven variables assessing sexual
orientation itself.” (34)

In light of the bill’s sweeping condemnation of all SSA therapies, it would seem as if
they’ve found that all forms are
“harmful?” However, there is no mention of specific methodologies, and no
investigations of specific interventions. Instead, they are all indiscriminately damned! The bill
cites another study that claims:

‘‘As with any societal prejudice, bias
against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation,
gender identity or gender expression negatively affects mental health,
contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism
through the internalization of such prejudice. Psychoanalytic technique
does not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’‘repair,’ change or
shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic
treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by
reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes.’’

It is clear why they seek to ban all forms SSA therapy.
Anything that would suggest that there might be something wrong or pathological
with homosexual sex has become taboo. No criticism allowed! Treatment for SSA,
whatever that treatment might be, suggests that there is something wrong with
SSA and its lifestyle. Such a suggestion is no longer permissible, even if it
undermines our freedoms of speech and religion.

The study claims that “Psychoanalytic technique [should] not
encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’‘repair,’ change or shift an individual’s
sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” In other words,
“Don’t tamper with sexual orientation!” However, this is the very thing that
psychotherapists do and the time, and the courts have been complicit,
sentencing rapists and pedophiles to psychotherapy in an attempt to modify
“sexual orientation” and its “expression.”

What is the damage done by SSA therapies? According to this
study and the consensus of gay advocacy groups, these therapies “result in
substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes.”
In other words, they suggest that there is something wrong with the homosexual
lifestyle.

Even if this is the case, this suggestion also pertains to anyone who goes for psychotherapy. Anyone
who pursues psychotherapy acknowledges that they have a problem, whether it’s OCD,
depression, or pornography, and the therapist, simply by receiving the client
for treatment, affirms this. Wouldn’t this also reinforce damaging internal
attitudes - that the client is “mentally ill” or damaged merchandise?

I certainly had felt this way when I was seeing
psychotherapists. In fact, many have complained about the uneven relationship
endemic to psychotherapy. The therapist is healthy and has the answers; the
client is unhealthy and needy. Perhaps all psychotherapy should therefore be
banned? After all, is it any more stigmatizing to seek treatment for OCD than
for SSA?

This study should also rule against those seeking help for
pornography addiction. Wouldn’t therapy imply that there was something the
matter with porn addiction and stigmatize the client in the same way that it is
alleged that SSA therapies stigmatize and damage their clients?

While those who report damage from SSA therapy are cheered,
there doesn’t seem to be any more rationale to charge “abuse” for this kind of
treatment than for treatment for depression.

Citing another study, the bill claims:

Minors who experience family rejection
based on their sexual orientation face especially serious health risks and
that such youth were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide,
5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression, and 3.4 times
more likely to use illegal drugs compared with peers from families that
reported no or low levels of family rejection…

I certainly do not want to minimize the dire picture that
these stats present or the very heavy costs endemic to the gay lifestyle,
however these statistics raise several questions:

What
does “family rejection” actually mean? The fact that the parents regard
the homosexual sex as sin but continue to try to have a relationship with
their child? I have yet to talk to any parents who have rejected their
child simply because they have SSA. We all struggle with many sins!
However, I know of several homosexual youth who have rejected their
parents simply because of their
point of view.

Perhaps
the parents understandably put their child out of the house for repeatedly
breaking house rules.

Perhaps
these elevated levels of suicide attempts, depression and drug use are
better understood as the inherent cost of this lifestyle?

In
fact, studies show that these same dismal stats are found among
homosexuals in cultures where they are not only accepted but congratulated
for their courage for coming out.

Perhaps
instead of going with the secular flow of accepting this costly lifestyle,
parents need to learn how to be more transparent about their own failures
and more accepting of themselves and the struggles of others? The love of
Christ has taught me a lot about self acceptance and the acceptance of
others.

If the
parents must accept the homosexual lifestyle as legitimate, why should
they stop there? Wouldn’t follow that they would also need to accept
lying, stealing, bullying, and any other anti-social behavior, lest their
child might feel rejected?

It
would seem that this same logic could just as easily be used against the church’s
teachings against certain sins. It could also be used against the Bible
for stigmatizing certain sins. In fact, this is already happening! The
Bible is often termed “homophobic.”

The bill also includes Congressional encouragement for:

Each State to take steps to protect
minors from efforts that promote or promise to change sexual orientation
or gender identity or expression, based on the premise that homosexuality
is a mental illness or developmental disorder that can or should be cured.

Does this mean that the bill intends to silence any
criticism of the gay lifestyle? It certainly sounds that way. Well, what then
of diversity of opinion, freedom of speech and religion? It seems that our
society is moving from democracy and freedom to totalitarianism. Perhaps Radical
Secularism represents the new State religion..

At a press conference announcing the bill, its author,
Speier, said:

“Let’s get this straight. Being gay,
lesbian [or] transgender is not a disease to be cured or to be treated.”

If this was only her opinion,
there would be little problem. People disagree all the time about what is a mental
“disease.” However, this is more than an opinion. It represents a ban, which
prevents any minor seeking help from finding it. It would be one thing to warn
the client of the dangers of SSA therapy and how it might reinforce the idea
that there is something wrong with the homosexual lifestyle – and indeed, the
identical “dangers” are inherent in all psychotherapy and psychiatry! However,
it is another thing to ban all such SSA therapies, condemning those with
unwanted SSA to a lifestyle that automatically strips 20 years from the average
lifespan.

It is ironic that the same people who are pro-choice when it
comes to taking the life of the not-yet-born are anti-choice when it comes to
allowing someone to exit a highly self-destructive lifestyle.